Author
Topic: How can we know whether the teaching of a person is heresy or not? (Read 3730 times)

According to Protestant teaching, If we want to test whether a person's teaching is heresy, we would only use the bible. But I think this method is rubbish and quite stupid . Because the meanings of Scripture passages are all depends on our interpretation .They all depends on our Interpretation skills on Scriptures. Even Universalist, Calvinist can also find many Scripture passges to support their nonsense view.

If we use Church tradition to test whether the teaching of a person is heresy or not, I think there are also some problems. When Jesus became the flesh and came to the world. He also taught many things which contradict with the tradtions and tradition teachings of Jewish faiths, e.g Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes' tradition teachings . Most believers in Judaism also thought and proclaimed that Jesus' teachings were heresy.

Any good suggestion on how to test whether a persons' teaching is heresy or not ?

I will tell you what I did when I started looking into Orthodoxy. I would ask as many Orthodox the same question to see if they had the same answer, never telling them I was asking others. It worked out well and here I am. It may be a way for your peace of mind. Ask around and see what different people (Orthodox of course) have to say. Make sure one of those people is a priest. This way, you get a firm view of what the Church teaches on the matter. Hey, like OC.net.

If it's a belief historically declared to be heresy by councils and synods?

I cannot speak for catholic and orthodoxy. I am Protestant. I have heart many nonsense(heretic) teaching here. For example,' once saved, always saved', ' Christians would be still saved even they do not keep God's commandments ', ' God punish and kill Jesus'. All these heretic teachings just become more popular.

Here are also many controversial issues in Protestant, especially in charismatic and pentecostal church, like speak in tongue,Slain in Holy Spirit, heaven and hell visitation testimonies. All these controversial issues also become more popular.

Is there any Ecumenical Council or synod holding in 20-21 century and discussing all the above heretic and controversial issues? If the churches still hold Ecumenical Councils in 20-21 century. Are they less effective than the First Seven Ecumencial Council in early century?

(Ancient Church determine heretic teaching through the Ecumencial Council and synod. In Today's church, it seems that every famous religion/bible scholars has the special rights to determine which teachings is heretic. This phenomenon at least happens in Protestant. )

If it's a belief historically declared to be heresy by councils and synods?

I cannot speak for catholic and orthodoxy. I am Protestant. I have heart many nonsense(heretic) teaching here. For example,' once saved, always saved', ' Christians would be still saved even they do not keep God's commandments ', ' God punish and kill Jesus'. All these heretic teaching just become more popular.

Here are also many controversial issues in Protestant, especially in charismatic and pentecostal church, like speak in tongue,Slain in Holy Spirit, heaven and hell visitation testimonies. All these controversial issues also become more popular.

Is there any Ecumenical Council or synod holding in 20-21 century and discussing all the above heretic and controversial issues? If the churches still hold Ecumenical Councils in 20-21 century. Are they less effective than the First Seven Ecumencial Council in early century?

(Ancient Church determine heretic teaching through the Ecumencial Council and synod. In Today's church, it seems that every famous scholars has the right to determine which teachings is heretic. This phenomenon at least happens in Protestant. )

One of the truly depressing things about heresy is that the old heresies that the Church has already dealt with are alive and well. There is truly nothing new under the sun.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

There are a few misunderstandings in your post that I immediately detected. The first is that I think you may not understand what us Orthodox mean by 'Tradition'. 'Tradition' to us does not refer merely to particular ideas that people in the Church randomly had, but refers to the teachings of Jesus that were delivered down to us via His Apostles through a) the Bible, b) orally, and c) the Church Fathers--all of whom based their ideas and concepts off of the first two. Secondly, Jesus only opposed certain traditions from the Pharisees which did not have any basis in the Law, ie the 'traditions of men'. And in some cases, He did not oppose their 'traditions' at all, but only opposed the Pharisees themselves not because they were following some type of evil tradition, but because they were obeying the traditions with the wrong disposition. Instead of performing God's traditions to be a humble servant and learn, they were only performing them in a legalistic manner to make them feel self-righteous. In fact, in one instance, Jesus even told us to obey the Pharisees in what they teach us, but to not imitate them.

There are a few misunderstandings in your post that I immediately detected. The first is that I think you may not understand what us Orthodox mean by 'Tradition'. 'Tradition' to us does not refer merely to particular ideas that people in the Church randomly had, but refers to the teachings of Jesus that were delivered down to us via His Apostles through a) the Bible, b) orally, and c) the Church Fathers--all of whom based their ideas and concepts off of the first two. Secondly, Jesus only opposed certain traditions from the Pharisees which did not have any basis in the Law, ie the 'traditions of men'. And in some cases, He did not oppose their 'traditions' at all, but only opposed the Pharisees themselves not because they were following some type of evil tradition, but because they were obeying the traditions with the wrong disposition. Instead of performing God's traditions to be a humble servant and learn, they were only performing them in a legalistic manner to make them feel self-righteous. In fact, in one instance, Jesus even told us to obey the Pharisees in what they teach us, but to not imitate them.

Yes, in book of Esther,Israelites also created a new tradtion,e.g. Purim , and asked the people to remmeber and kept this tradition throughout every generation.

God did not ask the Israelities to form and keep Purim in the FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES. God also do not reject them to have and keep this tradition,e.g. Perim.THe most important issue is that we have to keep these traditions with right attitude and disposition before God.

According to Protestant teaching, If we want to test whether a person's teaching is heresy, we would only use the bible. But I think this method is rubbish and quite stupid .

Any good suggestion on how to test whether a persons' teaching is heresy or not ?

I would not call that test stupid and rubbish. Just incomplete. I add the Nicene Creed. If whatever someone says is in contrast to the creed they are NOT teaching Christianity. You can mark a lot of the cults right there. Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Yes, Nicene Creed.

According to Protestant teaching, If we want to test whether a person's teaching is heresy, we would only use the bible. But I think this method is rubbish and quite stupid .

Any good suggestion on how to test whether a persons' teaching is heresy or not ?

I would not call that test stupid and rubbish. Just incomplete. I add the Nicene Creed. If whatever someone says is in contrast to the creed they are NOT teaching Christianity. You can mark a lot of the cults right there. Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Yes, Nicene Creed.

I presume you think Roman Catholicism is non-Christian then? Or by Nicene Creed do you mean as it was left at Nicea without the additions from Constantinople? Or do you perhaps accept the filioque as a legitimate addition? And by which tradition do you come to that conclusion, whatever it may be?

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

According to Protestant teaching, If we want to test whether a person's teaching is heresy, we would only use the bible. But I think this method is rubbish and quite stupid .

Any good suggestion on how to test whether a persons' teaching is heresy or not ?

I would not call that test stupid and rubbish. Just incomplete. I add the Nicene Creed. If whatever someone says is in contrast to the creed they are NOT teaching Christianity. You can mark a lot of the cults right there. Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Yes, Nicene Creed.

I presume you think Roman Catholicism is non-Christian then? Or by Nicene Creed do you mean as it was left at Nicea without the additions from Constantinople? Or do you perhaps accept the filioque as a legitimate addition? And by which tradition do you come to that conclusion, whatever it may be?

James

Filioque or no filioque, ἐκπορεύεσθαι or procedere or Tomato, tomate or Tomata. Who cares. That is people with too much time on their hands arguing about nothing. It is old ladies at the hairdresser. There is no 2 centavos difference between them.

According to Protestant teaching, If we want to test whether a person's teaching is heresy, we would only use the bible. But I think this method is rubbish and quite stupid .

Any good suggestion on how to test whether a persons' teaching is heresy or not ?

I would not call that test stupid and rubbish. Just incomplete. I add the Nicene Creed. If whatever someone says is in contrast to the creed they are NOT teaching Christianity. You can mark a lot of the cults right there. Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Yes, Nicene Creed.

I presume you think Roman Catholicism is non-Christian then? Or by Nicene Creed do you mean as it was left at Nicea without the additions from Constantinople? Or do you perhaps accept the filioque as a legitimate addition? And by which tradition do you come to that conclusion, whatever it may be?

James

Filioque or no filioque, ἐκπορεύεσθαι or procedere or Tomato, tomate or Tomata. Who cares. That is people with too much time on their hands arguing about nothing. It is old ladies at the hairdresser. There is no 2 centavos difference between them.

According to Protestant teaching, If we want to test whether a person's teaching is heresy, we would only use the bible. But I think this method is rubbish and quite stupid .

Any good suggestion on how to test whether a persons' teaching is heresy or not ?

I would not call that test stupid and rubbish. Just incomplete. I add the Nicene Creed. If whatever someone says is in contrast to the creed they are NOT teaching Christianity. You can mark a lot of the cults right there. Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Yes, Nicene Creed.

I presume you think Roman Catholicism is non-Christian then? Or by Nicene Creed do you mean as it was left at Nicea without the additions from Constantinople? Or do you perhaps accept the filioque as a legitimate addition? And by which tradition do you come to that conclusion, whatever it may be?

James

Filioque or no filioque, ἐκπορεύεσθαι or procedere or Tomato, tomate or Tomata. Who cares. That is people with too much time on their hands arguing about nothing. It is old ladies at the hairdresser. There is no 2 centavos difference between them.

I beg to differ, but it's up to you if you wish to hold to that. To me the filioque is (certainly if added to the Creed) heresy. There is, unfortunately for your argument a difference in meaning between the Greek and Latin. But leaving that aside, by what tradition do you come to your conclusion? It's clearly not Orthodox, nor would I venture is it Roman Catholic, so what exactly brings you to use the "Nicene" Creed as your yardstick?

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

According to Protestant teaching, If we want to test whether a person's teaching is heresy, we would only use the bible. But I think this method is rubbish and quite stupid .

Any good suggestion on how to test whether a persons' teaching is heresy or not ?

I would not call that test stupid and rubbish. Just incomplete. I add the Nicene Creed. If whatever someone says is in contrast to the creed they are NOT teaching Christianity. You can mark a lot of the cults right there. Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Yes, Nicene Creed.

I presume you think Roman Catholicism is non-Christian then? Or by Nicene Creed do you mean as it was left at Nicea without the additions from Constantinople? Or do you perhaps accept the filioque as a legitimate addition? And by which tradition do you come to that conclusion, whatever it may be?

James

Filioque or no filioque, ἐκπορεύεσθαι or procedere or Tomato, tomate or Tomata. Who cares. That is people with too much time on their hands arguing about nothing. It is old ladies at the hairdresser. There is no 2 centavos difference between them.

Filioque is heresy. Heresy isn't 'nothing'.

I do not know Latin and I do not know Greek. I lose no sleep over filioque. If it is included in the creed or not.

The Vatican has recently argued that, while these words would indeed be heretical if associated with the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι of the text adopted by the Council of Constantinople, they are not heretical when associated with the Latin verb procedere, which corresponds instead to the Greek verb προϊέναι, with which some of the Greek Fathers also associated the same words. Latin has no word with the same overtones as ἐκπορεύεσθαι (ἐκπορευόμενον, in the original Greek text of the Creed, is the present participle of this verb), and in its translation can only use the verb procedere, which is broader in meaning.

According to Protestant teaching, If we want to test whether a person's teaching is heresy, we would only use the bible. But I think this method is rubbish and quite stupid .

Any good suggestion on how to test whether a persons' teaching is heresy or not ?

I would not call that test stupid and rubbish. Just incomplete. I add the Nicene Creed. If whatever someone says is in contrast to the creed they are NOT teaching Christianity. You can mark a lot of the cults right there. Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Yes, Nicene Creed.

I presume you think Roman Catholicism is non-Christian then? Or by Nicene Creed do you mean as it was left at Nicea without the additions from Constantinople? Or do you perhaps accept the filioque as a legitimate addition? And by which tradition do you come to that conclusion, whatever it may be?

James

Filioque or no filioque, ἐκπορεύεσθαι or procedere or Tomato, tomate or Tomata. Who cares. That is people with too much time on their hands arguing about nothing. It is old ladies at the hairdresser. There is no 2 centavos difference between them.

Filioque is heresy. Heresy isn't 'nothing'.

I do not know Latin and I do not know Greek. I lose no sleep over filioque. If it is included in the creed or not.

The Vatican has recently argued that, while these words would indeed be heretical if associated with the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι of the text adopted by the Council of Constantinople, they are not heretical when associated with the Latin verb procedere, which corresponds instead to the Greek verb προϊέναι, with which some of the Greek Fathers also associated the same words. Latin has no word with the same overtones as ἐκπορεύεσθαι (ἐκπορευόμενον, in the original Greek text of the Creed, is the present participle of this verb), and in its translation can only use the verb procedere, which is broader in meaning.

Old ladies at the hairdresser. That is all it is.

No, given that the Creed was written in Greek, what you quote is actually effectively an admission that the filioque is heretical if used in the Creed. The fact that Latin has no better translation than procedere available to it is pretty much the perfect argument for excluding it from the Creed. Outside the Creed and when talking about temporal procession, they can use it to their hearts content.

James

« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 07:09:26 AM by jmbejdl »

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

According to Protestant teaching, If we want to test whether a person's teaching is heresy, we would only use the bible. But I think this method is rubbish and quite stupid .

Any good suggestion on how to test whether a persons' teaching is heresy or not ?

I would not call that test stupid and rubbish. Just incomplete. I add the Nicene Creed. If whatever someone says is in contrast to the creed they are NOT teaching Christianity. You can mark a lot of the cults right there. Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Yes, Nicene Creed.

I presume you think Roman Catholicism is non-Christian then? Or by Nicene Creed do you mean as it was left at Nicea without the additions from Constantinople? Or do you perhaps accept the filioque as a legitimate addition? And by which tradition do you come to that conclusion, whatever it may be?

James

Filioque or no filioque, ἐκπορεύεσθαι or procedere or Tomato, tomate or Tomata. Who cares. That is people with too much time on their hands arguing about nothing. It is old ladies at the hairdresser. There is no 2 centavos difference between them.

Filioque is heresy. Heresy isn't 'nothing'.

I do not know Latin and I do not know Greek. I lose no sleep over filioque. If it is included in the creed or not.

The Vatican has recently argued that, while these words would indeed be heretical if associated with the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι of the text adopted by the Council of Constantinople, they are not heretical when associated with the Latin verb procedere, which corresponds instead to the Greek verb προϊέναι, with which some of the Greek Fathers also associated the same words. Latin has no word with the same overtones as ἐκπορεύεσθαι (ἐκπορευόμενον, in the original Greek text of the Creed, is the present participle of this verb), and in its translation can only use the verb procedere, which is broader in meaning.

Old ladies at the hairdresser. That is all it is.

I happen to know Greek and Latin and procedere and ekporeuesthai is pretty much the same when you take into account that the Latin dogma states that the Spirit receives His being and essence from the Son (as from one principle with the Father - modalism?) which is very much heresy.

According to Protestant teaching, If we want to test whether a person's teaching is heresy, we would only use the bible. But I think this method is rubbish and quite stupid .

Any good suggestion on how to test whether a persons' teaching is heresy or not ?

I would not call that test stupid and rubbish. Just incomplete. I add the Nicene Creed. If whatever someone says is in contrast to the creed they are NOT teaching Christianity. You can mark a lot of the cults right there. Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Yes, Nicene Creed.

I presume you think Roman Catholicism is non-Christian then? Or by Nicene Creed do you mean as it was left at Nicea without the additions from Constantinople? Or do you perhaps accept the filioque as a legitimate addition? And by which tradition do you come to that conclusion, whatever it may be?

James

Filioque or no filioque, ἐκπορεύεσθαι or procedere or Tomato, tomate or Tomata. Who cares. That is people with too much time on their hands arguing about nothing. It is old ladies at the hairdresser. There is no 2 centavos difference between them.

I beg to differ, but it's up to you if you wish to hold to that. To me the filioque is (certainly if added to the Creed) heresy. There is, unfortunately for your argument a difference in meaning between the Greek and Latin. But leaving that aside, by what tradition do you come to your conclusion? It's clearly not Orthodox, nor would I venture is it Roman Catholic, so what exactly brings you to use the "Nicene" Creed as your yardstick?

James

My God. Is it any wonder the youth are sick to death of organized religion.

According to Protestant teaching, If we want to test whether a person's teaching is heresy, we would only use the bible. But I think this method is rubbish and quite stupid .

Any good suggestion on how to test whether a persons' teaching is heresy or not ?

I would not call that test stupid and rubbish. Just incomplete. I add the Nicene Creed. If whatever someone says is in contrast to the creed they are NOT teaching Christianity. You can mark a lot of the cults right there. Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind. Yes, Nicene Creed.

I presume you think Roman Catholicism is non-Christian then? Or by Nicene Creed do you mean as it was left at Nicea without the additions from Constantinople? Or do you perhaps accept the filioque as a legitimate addition? And by which tradition do you come to that conclusion, whatever it may be?

James

Filioque or no filioque, ἐκπορεύεσθαι or procedere or Tomato, tomate or Tomata. Who cares. That is people with too much time on their hands arguing about nothing. It is old ladies at the hairdresser. There is no 2 centavos difference between them.

I beg to differ, but it's up to you if you wish to hold to that. To me the filioque is (certainly if added to the Creed) heresy. There is, unfortunately for your argument a difference in meaning between the Greek and Latin. But leaving that aside, by what tradition do you come to your conclusion? It's clearly not Orthodox, nor would I venture is it Roman Catholic, so what exactly brings you to use the "Nicene" Creed as your yardstick?

James

My God. Is it any wonder the youth are sick to death of organized religion.

Does that mean that you are unable or unwilling to answer the question? And I don't about yours, but our church is packed with youth every Sunday.

James

« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 07:13:57 AM by jmbejdl »

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

If you hold, as the Latin church does, that the spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, you can end up subordinating the Spirit. It is also the reason that the Son (i.e., Christ) has a much more prominent role. This is also less neo-Platonist, in that there isn't as clearly a path back to God (i.e., through the spirit, to the son, to the father). This can end up leading to a more legalistic faith, emphasizing creeds and canons.

If you hold, as the Orthodox church does, that the spirit proceeds from the Father, you end up de-emphasizing the place of the Son (i.e., Christ). You have a different kind of mysticism as well - more neo-Platonist in character.

You see? Tomato, tomate or Tomata. It is a lot of nothing. No one really cares about this issue. It was most likely a theological football the east and west kicked back to one another to mask their political fightings from the laity.

You can wait for unity all you want, it will happen when Easter and Pentecost will be on the same day.

So be it.

Extra ecclesiam...

God gives salvation. Not the church.

That's so, but you're making quite a big gamble by staying outside of the Church. If the RCC or the EOC would be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, it would be quite stupid to remain outside of it, don't you agree?

You can wait for unity all you want, it will happen when Easter and Pentecost will be on the same day.

So be it.

Extra ecclesiam...

God gives salvation. Not the church.

If the RCC or the EOC would be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, it would be quite stupid to remain outside of it, don't you agree?

There is no RCC or EOC. These are the same Church.

No. That's just silly. They have been apart for 1000 years and only one can hold the apostolic faith since on many issues the EOC and RCC teach different things. The Church cannot have fallen into heresy.

Do you happen to be Anglican? Your branch theory would fit well there.

I hope a moderator will move this part of the thread to the "Cyrillic vs Green_Umbrella" thread

So the EOC teach papal infallibility now? What about the filioque, the azymes, universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the immaculate conception? All dogmas of the EOC now or at least accepted? The EOC and RCC are not one Church. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

So the EOC teach papal infallibility now? What about the filioque, the azymes, universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the immaculate conception? All dogmas of the EOC now? The EOC and RCC are not one Church. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

They are one church. Why else would they talk uniting? They have meetings for this purpose. Many. Do we see the RCC holding talks to unite with the church of Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.? No. The RCC and EOC have these talks because they know they are the same church, of course.

So the EOC teach papal infallibility now? What about the filioque, the azymes, universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the immaculate conception? All dogmas of the EOC now? The EOC and RCC are not one Church. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

They are one church. Why else would they talk uniting? They have meetings for this purpose. Many. Do we see the RCC holding talks to unite with the church of Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.? No. The RCC and EOC have these talks because they know they are the same church, of course.

Same church.

If they would be one Church what would be the point of those talks about reuniting since they're obviously one anyway?

So the EOC teach papal infallibility now? What about the filioque, the azymes, universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the immaculate conception? All dogmas of the EOC now? The EOC and RCC are not one Church. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

They are one church. Why else would they talk uniting? They have meetings for this purpose. Many. Do we see the RCC holding talks to unite with the church of Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.? No. The RCC and EOC have these talks because they know they are the same church, of course.

Same church.

If they would be one Church what would be the point of those talks about reuniting since they're obviously one anyway?

So the EOC teach papal infallibility now? What about the filioque, the azymes, universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the immaculate conception? All dogmas of the EOC now? The EOC and RCC are not one Church. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

They are one church. Why else would they talk uniting? They have meetings for this purpose. Many. Do we see the RCC holding talks to unite with the church of Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.? No. The RCC and EOC have these talks because they know they are the same church, of course.

Same church.

Green_Umbrella,

I think you would make your logic much more convincing if you cited outside authorities who support your point of view. Otherwise, you're just bloviating your own opinions.